On 5 Feb 2005, at 00:34, Robert Sayre wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:3.5 Identity Constructs
An Identity construct is an element whose content conveys a permanent, universally unique identifier for the resource (instantiated|described) by the construct's parent element. An Atom Document MAY contain multiple (revisions|versions) of the same resource, in which case the content of the Identity construct for each would be identical. Applications MAY decline to display more than one version of each resource.
Comments? Preferences? Better ideas? Is it ready for a Pace?
It doesn't make a bit of sense unless you define "entry" and "feed", as has been pointed out numerous times over the past few days. This text is defining a feed in the text on atom:id, which should be short.
If you define feed as a "sliding window on a stream of entries", your definition makes sense. If you define feed as a "server-determined representation of the current status of a set of entries", then it only makes sense to include one entry per atom:id. I would argue the second definition makes a lot more sense and accurately reflects real-world usage, where even the RDF formats recommend against repeating rdf:about.
I would argue that you are completely wrong on this one. It is the first sliding
window version that represents current usage a lot better. When people move their
feed document to the archive, the easiest way to do this, is just to copy the
live feed document over to a new timestamped file and change the next and
previous links. Your suggestion would mean they would have to go through all
the archived versions (the feed documents you get to by following the "next" links
in sequence), and eliminate all duplicate entries. That is a lot more time
consuming.
I find it really good in fact that people should be able to keep a history of
the changes they make to their entries. That is the honest thing to do. Those who
want to cheat can also get what they want by deleting previous entries. But it
will require more work.
In any case the current system is I think very well defined. I am +1 on it
remaining this way, and would be seriously distraught at seeing it go. I am in
fact amazed that this should come up so late in the discussion here. No wonder
this group can't get any further along. The basic model is not even agreed to
by everyone.
As for the whole text on Identity constructs it is again one of those useless
pieces of text that the group is forced to write out because of its refusal to
use the appropriate tools. If you had used RDF as a model for what you are trying
to write then you would long ago have finished the document, and it would be a lot
shorter and clearer too.
Henry
Robert Sayre
